APRN Employment Contract Critique
With the forthcoming certification to become an accredited Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP), it is now increasingly necessary to consider employment as the next phase in this protracted career excursion. Numerous dynamics often come into play while on the road to becoming a licensed FNP. Perhaps the most significant is securing gainful employment within the health sector and subsequently proceeding to enter an employment contract with an employer. An employment contract is, essentially, an obligatory measure for it is succinct in its definition of major responsibilities, remuneration, and the billing process for APRNs (Dillon McLean & Hoyson, 2017). A detailed breakdown of this information is contained within the employment contract with the primary aim of protecting employees as they proceed with providing crucial services to their employers. Thus, this employment contract critique seeks to provide an in-depth assessment based on Rachel Markovich’s terms of service contained within the paper’s appendix.
Scope of Practice
In Ms. Rachel’s employment contract, employee roles are clearly outlined and succinctly elaborated to guarantee their total and unequivocal comprehension with regard to what exactly is expected of them within the workplace environment. This includes the entire scope of their practice in line with provisions within the State of Alaska. A list of these duties appears within the contract while underscoring the fact that each provision is in line with regulations and legislations pertaining to Nurse Practitioners (NPs) within this particular jurisdiction. These considerations are particularly crucial since the objective should always be to develop a legally binding contract and crucial as part of the initial documentation process prior to finalizing the employment agreement. One of the most invaluable aspects of this provision is that the employer offers the nurse practitioner in question an opportunity to improve their professional skills through capacity building, coupled with furthering their education. The employer also expects the NP to adhere to professional conduct at all times. This provides them with a clear understanding of what is expected of them, especially with regard to acceptable conduct within the workplace environment. However, it is important to acknowledge that the con tact does not specify the demographic that Ms. Rachel will be treating or what type of practice she is agreeing to. Furthermore, the type of call services on offer is not specified and no description of specific individuals she will be serving is provided by the employer.
Duration of Employment
Employers are legally obligated to state the expected duration of employment within the contract for intelligibility. In this case, the employer specifies that the employment contact between them and Ms. Rachel will be valid for a year, after which she will be reevaluated to gauge her eligibility for a subsequent renewal. This serves a positive indication of the employer’s commitment to reevaluating the terms of service for a possible promotion. Ms. Rachel is currently works for forty hours each week.
In this scenario, Ms. Rachel is solely responsible for ensuring that she maintains her credentials. However, this process will not be inclusive of all associated costs of licensure and furthering her education. Her employer is expected to cover the cost of maintaining her credentials, which is why she is eligible for an annual reimbursement of $2,500 as indicated in the appendix.
Employers are tasked with the responsibility of always putting their employee’s wellbeing into consideration, which includes identifying potential benefits accruing from their service. Ms. Rachel gets 3 days of paid leave to further her credentials in the field, in addition to all federally recognized holidays. The vacation time specified includes 20 fully-paid days each year and can be taken in a span of a fortnight. It is worth noting that this time does not have any financial value and cannot, therefore, be compensated in case the employment contract is ended. This would have been different if Ms. Rachel had been recruited as a permanent employee. The aforementioned benefits are meant to promote an ideal work-life balance and prevent burnouts as is commonly the case within the healthcare sector.
Restriction on Competition
On close inspection, Ms. Rachel’s employment contract does not seem to contain a non-compete clause originally meant to limit and restrict competition. This now means that she can seek alternative employment to supplement her pay. In the event that the contract had clearly specified a restriction on competition, Ms. Rachel would not have been eligible for a second job while practicing or even after ending her contract with her employer for a specified period. According to Ghosh & Shankar (2017), non-compete clause vary in their enforcement from state to state; with jurisdiction such as California pushing for non-compliance in implementation, while states such as Massachusetts allow permit its operationalization.
Reasons for Termination
The provision for identification of clear reasons for termination is fundamental when seeking to avoid and prevent legal issues in direct relation to the employment and dismissal of an employee. Ms. Rachel’s employment clearly outlines reasons for termination as indicated in the appendix. The employer specifies that a three-day notice will always be provided prior to enforcing a termination order. Furthermore, the contract specifies that practitioners found to be in contravention of specifications provided by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) will be subject to immediate termination. Actions deemed to be in direct contravention of these specifications includes the use of controlled substances, sexual misconduct and committing felonies. An APRN should, therefore, always take particular specifications into account, as recorded in their contract, to avert a scenario where they are terminated for being in direct contravention of identified clauses (American Medical Association, 2017). This is especially necessary in guaranteeing that due process is always followed during when resorting to disciplinary action to ensure that all actions conducted remain within the confines of the law and contractual obligations.
Extent of Supportive Services
Employment contracts have commonly been known to also over supportive services for budding employees. It is important to acknowledge that Ms. Rachel’s contract does not specify or mention the availability of supportive services for the employee in question The contract is specified for an employee from the State of Alaska known for its somewhat profuse approach to regulation. According to the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (2020), Alaska provides an ideal environment for APRNs where they can practice autonomously without requiring supervision by a physician.
Daily Patient Visits
The contract in question is not specific in providing a breakdown of major expectations for daily visits within the facility. The only specification provided is that the employee is expected to work for 8 hours each day, but may still be expected to spend more time at the facility depending on the patient load. However, this will possibly have a negative impact on the employees given the impact of long shifts on nurses especially with regard to their productivity and propensity to making errors.
Non-clinical work is rarely given precedence by care providers and may not be specified within a contract. This is likely to result in scenario where the number of patients is sustainable, affording an APRN enough time between subsequent evaluations. The frequency of sparsely populated regions within Alaska may explain the absence of any clause related to non-clinical work within the employment contract.
Quality Measures Releases by Auditors
Ms. Rachel’s contract does not contain any discussions addressing the subsequent release of any quality measures by auditors at any given point during their stint within the organization. However, it is common for healthcare providers to bundle such provisions with MIPS programs for their employees. According to the American Medical Association (2019), this score system creates a framework solely based on the idea that recompense can be provided to healthcare providers for up to 7 % of billings that take place within their facilities. However, this amount is only offered based on the quality of services offered and the level of contentment registered by the clients.
In my opinion, Ms. Rachel’s contract is partially complete since it fails to address crucial specifications which should always be contained within an APRN’s employment contract. The contract failed to consider the relative importance of administrative time for its employees, given that it is always recommended for productivity. Ms. Rachel’s compensation is reasonable, although she should also consider liaising with collaborating providers for improved outcomes.